KFA - Krishnamurti Foundation of America

Roots · 2012-06-26 07:27:35

Evidently then there is a tension between the ‘real’ and the ‘delineated’ area depicted in the dialogue and if a person wishes to reduce their (pseudo duality induced) perceptual distortion it will be necessary to somehow bring about a reduction in the activity of the (delineated) habituated state. In the underlined text K and Bohm discuss this matter and also whether the (habituated) activity might be eliminated altogether. K insinuates that through insight it can be eliminated, and Bohm concurs. K also says the delineated area can ‘expand and contract’. Obviously such expansion and contraction must equate to increase and reduction of the ego, and thus its influence upon the Self (by which term I mean the real as it directly applies to yet individualised humanity). So we might enquire then, what could stimulate such expansion or contraction?

It is my experience on the Forum that some people finding their ideas challenged, react to evade or avoid such challenge rather than meeting it squarely in legitimate ongoing enquiry. This raises the question: might this type of reaction work to expand (or at least maintain) the delineated area vis-a-vis the operative concerned, weakening their Self? And conversely: if such challenges were to be met honestly in the spirit of genuine enquiry, might such reaction result in reduction of that pseudo area, strengthening the Self?*1

Of course what that question is really asking is whether feeding (i.e. indulgence) of the ‘I’, or the converse, starvation, might have the effect of respectively expanding or reducing the ‘I’s influence and domination (which in terms of K’s visualisation is to say altering its ‘size’).

I do not think I am entirely ignorant of the circumstances that surround these activities. I have come to understand e.g. that they are largely unwitting, by which I mean simply that for the most part the operatives do not know they’re doing it. The explanation for this is that it is activity which lies within the unseen field of the delineated area.*2

The best a person can hope to do is to evidence – in clear language and to the best of their ability - ideas as logically tenable or otherwise, and hope that the ‘owner’ of an idea might weigh the argumentation impartially; or even that support for robust argumentation and clear logic and rationality may be lent from abroad on the forum. (But most here are reluctant - outside of cliques - to even constructively take sides; they lack sufficient confidence in their own deductive capacities. For this reason discussions tend to culminate in just ‘one person’s word against another’s’. Given such a situation, if any individual should have an eye rather to maintaining their social standing (or forum ‘street cred’) than sorting ‘wheat from chaff’, then ‘taciturn’ and ‘smoke screen’ tactics will win the day for them (albeit superficially) and they’ll romp home. However, there is always a cost to error, and in these circumstances it will always be the perceived credibility of K and the forum which must stand forfeit. Duplicity - in whatever form or measure - will always exact a price from somewhere.

*1 Of course one might reasonably ask on a forum which purports serious dedication to enquiry and investigation for purposes of separating the tenable from the untenable why any should wish to resort to ‘avoidance and evasion’ stratagem anyway? Yet I see it here all the time; practices such as becoming taciturn, or creating a ‘smoke screen’ by means of verbal abuse of a challenger or misrepresentation of their material. I can evidence such activity in plenty if any should want me to.

*2 Perhaps it would be helpful to point out here that even in the world of science there is wide recognition of the effects of an individual’s desire for their theory to be proven right; that such can significantly influence perceived outcomes of experimentation. Indeed it could be claimed that this particular psychological infirmity is science’s weakest link. How much easier then, in the realms of the psychological where issues are much less ‘black and white’, for yearning souls to lead themselves astray? Given this situation and the nature of the matters discussed on this forum a person might cling to ideas regardless of the surrounding logic or rationale, and yet still maintain some legitimacy, on account that none can actually prove them wrong. To this extent we are obliged to rely upon the integrity of the membership. But can we (?) given, as we have seen, that individuals become blinded by their ‘I’? Worse; error has a habit of compounding; souls in the domination of their ‘I’ are not slow to pick-up on this situation and manipulate it to their ends.

Last edited by Roots (2012-06-26 08:34:43)

LMP · 2012-06-26 13:00:35

Roots wrote:
I do not think I am entirely ignorant of the circumstances that surround these activities. I have come to understand e.g. that they are largely unwitting, by which I mean simply that for the most part the operatives do not know they’re doing it. The explanation for this is that it is activity which lies within the unseen field of the delineated area.*2

And this must at the same time be an example of what you yourself are saying. What is the link between your previous understanding and your current one, is this link real or imagined? Or it was just a matter of language perhaps.

Well that was not what I wanted to say really, but that in 'expanding' it must be accepted that some problems are harder than others to see through and that seeing through them will somehow prepare the grounds for an insight into that thought is responsible for the delineated area.

Jayaraj · 2012-06-26 17:53:23

But is this 'Self' there? Or only the delineated area there? That was my question.

I can see that activity of the habituated delineated area keeps the mind rooted to that delineated area.Obviously, because if something is functioning, that which out of which functioning is taking place is existent as long as there is functioning.It is like state of running is there as long as you keep running.

Expansion of the delineated area is gathering more ideas?-so it's got more things to play with-more area?

wilbro99 · 2012-06-27 14:38:45

The blue notes continue and Part II is now up for scrutiny. The question here is one of whether or not the dead dobbin will finally make it appearance.

In Part I, the process whose culmination is the realization of the process was laid down as the form to be filled. Let's see if that departed dobbin whose flogging suggests the dead end is in it.

I have just read through this, the second of the three epistles posted by roots, and any further comment would lend to the beating of that dead horse.

LMP · 2012-06-27 15:57:47

It's hard to offer a bridge between the both of you when neither side or shore is seen, by me. That means that I do not (still), and Ive said it before, understand what either one of you are actually saying, when it comes to that which sets you apart in such a manner.

If I were to offer my view I would say that whatever we say is part of a story of our own making. The world, us, animals, trees, food, nothing comes telling what it is or why or that it is something or indeed nothing.

To me K referred to this as freedom, perhaps the freedom to say tree and also not to say it. Saying tree can be believed to objectify a tree, but doesn't, only in thinking are there objects.

So that leaves us with an area that is made out of thinking & ...

Ultimately it is also not possible to account for the story, because once the existence of thought is questioned, it is as transparent or borderless as that which it is trying to describe.

Well, there we are...to begin with.

tree · 2012-06-27 16:31:25

tree · 2012-06-27 16:36:20

wilbro99 · 2012-06-27 16:56:14

LMP, I just saw your post and I want to think about it a bit. You ask a question from another view of what the Roots and I are up to, and I want to clarify that question in my own mind before I respond; which I shall, respond, that is.

tree · 2012-06-27 17:15:42

wilbro99 · 2012-06-27 17:36:48

Ok, LMP, I see a way to get to this:

LMP: <<It's hard to offer a bridge between the both of you when neither side or shore is seen, by me. That means that I do not (still), and Ive said it before, understand what either one of you are actually saying, when it comes to that which sets you apart in such a manner. …>>

Let me see if I can spell that difference out from my end of that stick. If I were spelling this out to Roots, it would be a resumption of dead horse beating. I will begin at what I see is the beginning, which is that there is a problem with this identity of self we carry around. Hold that thought while I answer the rest of your post.

<<… If I were to offer my view I would say that whatever we say is part of a story of our own making. The world, us, animals, trees, food, nothing comes telling what it is or why or that it is something or indeed nothing. …>>

Which is to say that we each bring our own perspective of what that problem is to the table here. I say that the problem is that we have acquired an extra identity that puts us behind what is going on by the distance it takes to complete that extra reflection. Another could say that there is only one reflection and that the reflection itself, our identity as being who we are, that is at fault.

The one who thinks from the second perspective sees the one who thinks from the first perspective as the problem trying to cure itself, which it can't. The one who thinks from the first perspective sees the one who thinks from the second perspective as throwing out the baby with the bath water.

Those two perspectives, when they meet each other, cannot really communicate about this matter of identity. The can only flog a dead horse.

<<…To me K referred to this as freedom, perhaps the freedom to say tree and also not to say it. Saying tree can be believed to objectify a tree, but doesn't, only in thinking are there objects.

So that leaves us with an area that is made out of thinking & ... …>>

I cannot offer up my perspective without resorting to language of some sort, and that requires thought if we are to make sense of what another says. My perspective is that thinking about what belongs to thought is like sewing without knotting the thread.

<<… Ultimately it is also not possible to account for the story, because once the existence of thought is questioned, it is as transparent or borderless as that which it is trying to describe.

Well, there we are...to begin with.>>

Which is what I just agreed with.

Editorial:

LMP, I offered up my version of the difference between the Roots and myself in the story of two perspectives whose fundamental description of the problem defines the meaning of categorically different.

As to what the Roots sees as that difference, he describes that in Parts II & III of his offering. He is, in essence, talking directly to me and addressing what he sees as our difference. That is why I characterize both parts as beating that dead horse.

wilbro99 · 2012-06-27 17:43:38

Hi stumpy, you really need to do a expose of your shtick just as the Roots and I do; it's good for the soul.

tree · 2012-06-27 17:54:07

Last edited by tree (2012-06-28 16:13:17)

wilbro99 · 2012-06-27 18:05:52

Yeah, twiggy, figured. Just be sure to remember that desire is the breath of god, and you will not want, and you will lie down in green pastures, hopefully free of cow patties...

Pick up thy roots and walk...

LMP · 2012-06-27 18:42:10

to wil

I would say that the first reflection is at best pale and a clue to what is being reflected. (K would perhaps say limited) Also it is useful. At worst it is the basis for further error, like living in time ( a reflection) or psychological thought, in short we base a life on what seems to be. The me in thinking is perhaps necessary in order to patch up thinking which is not watertight.

I will look at it more but have to go right now.

wilbro: "Which is to say that we each bring our own perspective of what that problem is to the table here."

Well if one is right its difficult to change one's position, and in addition there are perhaps not so many positions to take. Still I would like to think that we are saying the same thing with a different amount of noise in it. That doesnt change much however. Well words fail me for now.

Last edited by LMP (2012-06-27 20:23:40)

wilbro99 · 2012-06-27 20:23:02

Hi LMP, toss what else you come up with on the table here and let's toss those ideas back and forth.

You and I have not really done the tea and crumpets thing yet.

LMP · 2012-06-27 20:38:27

Ok, lets then make this chrystal clear:

"I say that the problem is that we have acquired an extra identity that puts us behind what is going on by the distance it takes to complete that extra reflection. Another could say that there is only one reflection and that the reflection itself, our identity as being who we are, that is at fault. "

Yes to a real identity, whatever it might be. Yes to an extra identity, what ever it might be.

That which is going on is reflected upon, in a limited way, by what we call thinking. That I could call a first reflection. Then for various reasons, a second reflection, thinking is seen as the true identity even though it is not. Is that what you are saying or am I missing something.

If that is so then at least I know where we both start.

Let's say that from the point of view of what is going on, or our real identity, which is whole; there are no such things as a reflection, or a second reflection, thinking, a me etc. These come about only from analysing the reflection, that is in a limited scenario they can be separated out, otherwise not.

Last edited by LMP (2012-06-27 20:50:46)

wilbro99 · 2012-06-27 21:16:43

LMP wrote:
Ok, lets then make this chrystal clear:

"I say that the problem is that we have acquired an extra identity that puts us behind what is going on by the distance it takes to complete that extra reflection. Another could say that there is only one reflection and that the reflection itself, our identity as being who we are, that is at fault. "

Yes to a real identity, whatever it might be. Yes to an extra identity, what ever it might be.

That which is going on is reflected upon, in a limited way, by what we call thinking. That I could call a first reflection. Then for various reasons, a second reflection, thinking is seen as the true identity even though it is not. Is that what you are saying or am I missing something.

If that is so then at least I know where we both start. …

I'll recapitulate what I was saying with the context included, then add your ideas to the mix.

Roots takes the position that there is only one sense of self and that that sense of self is ersatz. I take the position that the given sense of self is the solution to the problem of self, and that problem is an added sense of self that takes the form of a temporal sense of self, and expresses itself as a reactive sense of self; the one that gets angry at those who do not agree with it.

I see you shifting that by the way you describe the difference. We could have a problem of communication here, so, I think it would be helpful if we work this out. Have at it, LMP; questions or comments or both…

LMP · 2012-06-28 10:56:22

Ok, even if you are precise in your description of self it has a few steps in it. It is basically that which remains when thought is no longer causing or solving 'the problem of self'. That still doesnt quite reveal it though, but the problem part is clear, temporal/reactive.

I dont have to relate to K but it might make it easier. He says there is nothing wrong with delighting in sense perceptions. If we forget about the word delight, would the rest of that sentence result (or partially result) in a sense of self, for you, or is that not quite the direction at all? If it is, what do you add to that? An awareness or understanding of the problem that wasnt there previously?

Question:
How did it come to happen that the added sense of self got tangled up in a temporal sense of self-problem out of all possible problems? I would like to say that the answer has to do with that the temporal is an example of how the reflection of what is going on is flawed and thought built upon that, the limitation of thought translates its own limits onto that which is percieved.

wilbro99 · 2012-06-28 13:59:03

LMP, my response to your latest response follows in this matter of how one views the problem of self, as it were. Let's continue batting the response ball back and forth over the net between us (pun intended).

LMP: <<Ok, even if you are precise in your description of self it has a few steps in it. It is basically that which remains when thought is no longer causing or solving 'the problem of self'. That still doesnt quite reveal it though, but the problem part is clear, temporal/reactive. …>>

I like that play on words. Thought, as an activity, is creating the problem it is actively trying to solve. And you are then questioning what all of that means.

<<… I dont have to relate to K but it might make it easier. He says there is nothing wrong with delighting in sense perceptions. If we forget about the word delight, would the rest of that sentence result (or partially result) in a sense of self, for you, or is that not quite the direction at all? If it is, what do you add to that? An awareness or understanding of the problem that wasnt there previously? ...>>

I think you are restating my premise here using JK's words. To take delight in anything requires a subject who is taking that delight. Whatever the taking of delight means, it is being registered by the one referring to it. Grammatically, there is no way around that if language is to make sense.

And I think you are saying that I was saying that the solution is an awareness of, or an understanding of, that very problem. Of course, the understanding defines the problem after the fact of its revelation, and, I would suspect that the problem has more than one way of being understood.

<<… Question: How did it come to happen that the added sense of self got tangled up in a temporal sense of self-problem out of all possible problems? I would like to say that the answer has to do with that the temporal is an example of how the reflection of what is going on is flawed and thought built upon that, the limitation of thought translates its own limits onto that which is percieved.>>

I think you are saying that the added sense of self is temporal/reactive sense of self, and that this added sense of self somehow has to do with thought. When you describe the source of that added sense of self as a flaw in the reflection of what is going on, that does provide a way to get at the problem; by watching the way we reflect upon things that are going on, including the way we reflect upon our own subjectivity.

Are we together up to this point? If so, lead on. If not, let's bat this around some more until we are both satisfied that we are together here.

Niko N. · 2012-06-28 15:18:32

"I say that the problem is that we have acquired an extra identity that puts us behind what is going on by the distance it takes to complete that extra reflection. Another could say that there is only one reflection and that the reflection itself, our identity as being who we are, that is at fault. " -Will

Interesting how you put this. I think that the extra identity is not a problem unless it is producing psychological content. The fact of it being behind is what allows for insights to happen. Would you agree? Because it moves at a different speed it is one of the cogs that allows for self-consciousness, self consciousness in both the good sense and the detrimental one.

wilbro99 · 2012-06-28 15:46:58

Will: I say that the problem is that we have acquired an extra identity that puts us behind what is going on by the distance it takes to complete that extra reflection. Another could say that there is only one reflection and that the reflection itself, our identity as being who we are, that is at fault.

Nico: <<Interesting how you put this. I think that the extra identity is not a problem unless it is producing psychological content. …>>

My logical grasp of that extra identity would be that if it is its content, then producing would be being. I think of it this way so that cessation of the activity equates to, or signifies, the loss of that identity.

<<… The fact of it being behind is what allows for insights to happen. Would you agree? …>>

Ok, let's say that that distance of space/time is somehow exposed or revealed in or by the insight, however that works out. Good, that would allow us to get our understanding around that point.

<<… Because it moves at a different speed it is one of the cogs that allows for self-consciousness, self consciousness in both the good sense and the detrimental one.>>

Two thoughts come up here. First one has to do a different speed, and the second one has to do with your defining consciousness as that between and adding that that which is between has two ways of filling itself. I'll look at those two later, but I think we have moved our discussion along here.

Niko N. · 2012-06-28 16:35:02

wilbro99 wrote:
Will: I say that the problem is that we have acquired an extra identity that puts us behind what is going on by the distance it takes to complete that extra reflection. Another could say that there is only one reflection and that the reflection itself, our identity as being who we are, that is at fault.

Nico: <<Interesting how you put this. I think that the extra identity is not a problem unless it is producing psychological content. …>>

My logical grasp of that extra identity would be that if it is its content, then producing would be being. I think of it this way so that cessation of the activity equates to, or signifies, the loss of that identity.

<<… The fact of it being behind is what allows for insights to happen. Would you agree? …>>

Ok, let's say that that distance of space/time is somehow exposed or revealed in or by the insight, however that works out. Good, that would allow us to get our understanding around that point.

<<… Because it moves at a different speed it is one of the cogs that allows for self-consciousness, self consciousness in both the good sense and the detrimental one.>>

Two thoughts come up here. First one has to do a different speed, and the second one has to do with your defining consciousness as that between and adding that that which is between has two ways of filling itself. I'll look at those two later, but I think we have moved our discussion along here.

Let me try to tease this out a little and see if we are somewhat on the same track. Say I'm doing something like painting a room in my house and I am "lost" in that activity. Suddenly, for whatever reason, I remember myself and recognize that I am painting the room, and have been for quite some "time" without really thinking about it. Maybe I have a minor insight into "time." That moment of remembering, what would you say it is with respect to "identities?" Second example: Say I'm in the middle of a heated argument with someone over their having let me down in some way. Suddenly I see myself in the midst of this activity, and say to myself "how stupid you are, you have to stop getting angry." I sit down , put my head in my hands , filled with self loathing. Aren't the two somewhat similar in terms of the second part overtaking the first part? In other words, the sheer mechanics of the two events are somewhat similar.

wilbro99 · 2012-06-28 17:12:47

Nico: <<Let me try to tease this out a little and see if we are somewhat on the same track. Say I'm doing something like painting a room in my house and I am "lost" in that activity. Suddenly, for whatever reason, I remember myself and recognize that I am painting the room, and have been for quite some "time" without really thinking about it. Maybe I have a minor insight into "time." That moment of remembering, what would you say it is with respect to "identities?" …>>

I would need a question answered first, and that because *being lost in an activity* could have more than one way of being lost to it. With respect to identity, would that not depend upon what sort of identity was "lost" in that activity?

<<… Second example: Say I'm in the middle of a heated argument with someone over their having let me down in some way. Suddenly I see myself in the midst of this activity, and say to myself "how stupid you are, you have to stop getting angry." I sit down , put my head in my hands , filled with self loathing. Aren't the two somewhat similar in terms of the second part overtaking the first part? In other words, the sheer mechanics of the two events are somewhat similar.>>

You have added extra activity to the second example that gets in my way of answering yes to your question. Let me remove it and paraphrase the remaining.

Say I'm in the middle of a heated argument with someone over their having let me down in some way and suddenly I catch sight of myself in the midst of this activity. This catching in the act, in terms of sheer mechanics, is the same as one of those ways I referred to in my response to which *being lost* you were referring to.

Niko N. · 2012-06-28 18:11:40

wilbro99 wrote:
Nico: <<Let me try to tease this out a little and see if we are somewhat on the same track. Say I'm doing something like painting a room in my house and I am "lost" in that activity. Suddenly, for whatever reason, I remember myself and recognize that I am painting the room, and have been for quite some "time" without really thinking about it. Maybe I have a minor insight into "time." That moment of remembering, what would you say it is with respect to "identities?" …>>

I would need a question answered first, and that because *being lost in an activity* could have more than one way of being lost to it. With respect to identity, would that not depend upon what sort of identity was "lost" in that activity?

<<… Second example: Say I'm in the middle of a heated argument with someone over their having let me down in some way. Suddenly I see myself in the midst of this activity, and say to myself "how stupid you are, you have to stop getting angry." I sit down , put my head in my hands , filled with self loathing. Aren't the two somewhat similar in terms of the second part overtaking the first part? In other words, the sheer mechanics of the two events are somewhat similar.>>

You have added extra activity to the second example that gets in my way of answering yes to your question. Let me remove it and paraphrase the remaining.

Say I'm in the middle of a heated argument with someone over their having let me down in some way and suddenly I catch sight of myself in the midst of this activity. This catching in the act, in terms of sheer mechanics, is the same as one of those ways I referred to in my response to which *being lost* you were referring to.

Well with respect to the first example, I meant that I am immersed in painting to the point of nothing else intruding. Some might use the term "flow." There could be minimal thinking going on related to what I need to do for the job, but let's say no psychological activity. Its all technical.

Is consciousness in operation here for the first part or is the second part that comes in and remembers defined as "consciousness?" Or both?

wilbro99 · 2012-06-28 19:28:09

Nico wrote:
Well with respect to the first example, I meant that I am immersed in painting to the point of nothing else intruding. Some might use the term "flow." There could be minimal thinking going on related to what I need to do for the job, but let's say no psychological activity. Its all technical.

Is consciousness in operation here for the first part or is the second part that comes in and remembers defined as "consciousness?" Or both?

The first question I would ask is whether or not there is an awareness of doing what you are doing that accompanies it, and if there is, there is no room for being lost in thought, as it were. You are asking question about what goes on in the shift from being absorbed to not being absorbed, and that depends upon whether or not that added identity is the sponge doesn't it?

Tough question. I have a structure that covers all of that, but it is something I cobbled together from my experience with that movement in and out of the sponge, which means that it is only my understanding cast in my terms of understanding.

Sorry that I cannot be more exact here.

KFA - Krishnamurti Foundation of America

Announcement

#1 2012-06-26 07:27:35

Part Two Cosmic Inventory

#2 2012-06-26 13:00:35

Re: Part Two Cosmic Inventory

Roots wrote:

#3 2012-06-26 17:53:23

Re: Part Two Cosmic Inventory

#4 2012-06-27 14:38:45

Re: Part Two Cosmic Inventory

#5 2012-06-27 15:57:47

Re: Part Two Cosmic Inventory

#6 2012-06-27 16:31:25

Re: Part Two Cosmic Inventory

#7 2012-06-27 16:36:20

Re: Part Two Cosmic Inventory

#8 2012-06-27 16:56:14

Re: Part Two Cosmic Inventory

#9 2012-06-27 17:15:42

Re: Part Two Cosmic Inventory

#10 2012-06-27 17:36:48

Re: Part Two Cosmic Inventory

#11 2012-06-27 17:43:38

Re: Part Two Cosmic Inventory

#12 2012-06-27 17:54:07

Re: Part Two Cosmic Inventory

#13 2012-06-27 18:05:52

Re: Part Two Cosmic Inventory

#14 2012-06-27 18:42:10

Re: Part Two Cosmic Inventory

#15 2012-06-27 20:23:02

Re: Part Two Cosmic Inventory

#16 2012-06-27 20:38:27

Re: Part Two Cosmic Inventory

#17 2012-06-27 21:16:43

Re: Part Two Cosmic Inventory

LMP wrote:

#18 2012-06-28 10:56:22

Re: Part Two Cosmic Inventory

#19 2012-06-28 13:59:03

Re: Part Two Cosmic Inventory

#20 2012-06-28 15:18:32

Re: Part Two Cosmic Inventory

#21 2012-06-28 15:46:58

Re: Part Two Cosmic Inventory

#22 2012-06-28 16:35:02

Re: Part Two Cosmic Inventory

wilbro99 wrote:

#23 2012-06-28 17:12:47

Re: Part Two Cosmic Inventory

#24 2012-06-28 18:11:40

Re: Part Two Cosmic Inventory

wilbro99 wrote:

#25 2012-06-28 19:28:09

Re: Part Two Cosmic Inventory

Nico wrote:

Board footer